1. Even more reason to totally discount the 9/11 Commission Report:
“Lawmakers say the obvious model for such an inquiry would be the 9/11 Commission—an independent bipartisan body praised for its authoritative account of the attacks.
…
Former commission investigators have acknowledged to me over the past year that the panel had a serious blind spot on questions about torture.
The commission appears to have ignored obvious clues throughout 2003 and 2004 that its account of the 9/11 plot and Al Qaeda’s history relied heavily on information obtained from detainees who had been subjected to torture, or something not far from it.
…
That has troubling implications for the credibility of the commission’s final report. In intelligence circles, testimony obtained through torture is typically discredited; research shows that people will say anything under threat of intense physical pain.
And yet it is a distinct possibility that Al Qaeda suspects who were the exclusive source of information for long passages of the commission’s report may have been subjected to “enhanced” interrogation techniques, or at least threatened with them, because of the 9/11 Commission.
…
Footnotes in the panel’s report indicate when information was obtained from detainees interrogated by the CIA. An analysis by NBC News found that more than a quarter of the report’s footnotes—441 of some 1,700—referred to detainees who were subjected to the CIA’s “enhanced” interrogation program, including the trio who were waterboarded.
Commission members note that they repeatedly pressed the Bush White House and CIA for direct access to the detainees, but the administration refused. So the commission forwarded questions to the CIA, whose interrogators posed them on the panel’s behalf.
…
[Bob] Kerrey said it might take “a permanent 9/11 commission” to end the remaining mysteries of September 11. Those now calling for more 9/11-style panels would be wise to heed his words.
…
Yeah Bob: A few “details” like 250 stories of steel and concrete blown up in controlled demolitions -and the thousands of people in them. Yeah Bob. A few “details” like that.
…
Interesting that Shenon believes it is distasteful to speak about Israeli Mossad involvement in 9/11 but it is quite fine to accuse 19 arabs with no “hard evidence” and to epistemologically bolster the lies that have led to the deaths, displacement and maimings of millions of human beings.
Why is the man who wrote the following (from p. 118 of “The Commission”) engaging with those who know the buildings were blown up and trying to ‘help’ them figure out how to get these questions settled? If it has been debunked, why does it need more debate?
“The conspiracy theories about 9/11 began to circulate long before the ashes had stoped smoldering at ground zero. That was no surprise. After an event as horrifying and — to the public — unexpected as 9/11, the darkest theories about its cause did not seem beyond belief. But by the time the 9/11 commission opened its doors in 2003, many of the most outrageous, if well circulated, of the theories — that the attacks were an inside job by the Bush Administration, that the Twin Towers were brought down by preplaced explosives, that the Pentagon was hit by a missile and not a plane — had been well debunked.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19604
2. More on Charles freeman:
“The Middle East press has questioned President Obama’s authority over Arab-Israeli issues since Charles W. Freeman Jr.’s withdrawal from his appointment to a senior intelligence position.
A commentary in Abu Dhabi’s the National, a newspaper owned by an investment fund controlled by the government, said Freeman’s decision Tuesday to withdraw as chairman of the National Intelligence Council “threw the Obama administration into the heart of a long-running controversy over the alleged supremacy of pro-Israel hawks in determining U.S. foreign policy after having taken a cautious approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so far consistent with previous administrations.”
The Daily Star in Beirut went further, saying Freeman’s action “is likely to be viewed as a significant victory for hardliners within the so-called ‘Israeli lobby,’ who led the movement to scuttle his appointment, and a blow to hopes for a new approach to Israel-Palestine issues under the Obama administration.”
An analyst in the National pointed out that the Israel lobby may have had a Pyrrhic victory. Noting that vocal Freeman opponent Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) had publicly said, “I repeatedly urged the White House to reject him, and I am glad they did the right thing,” the analyst wrote, “A lobby that has thrived through its covert operations can claim another victory in reversing Freeman’s appointment, but this time its workings may have been too transparent for its own good.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/14/AR2009031401605_pf.html
3. Full spectrum dominance being used against Americans:
“American wounded by Israeli troops has surgery
Silverman said skull fragments and a portion of his right frontal lobe were removed. He also suffered major trauma to the bone surrounding his right eye, she said.
…
His injury revived complaints by human rights activists that Israeli troops often use excessive force in dispersing West Bank protests. The Israeli military says stone-throwing poses a threat to troops, and several officers have been injured by rocks.
Troops used the permitted means of riot dispersal in Friday’s incident, the military said. This includes tear gas, rubber-coated steel pellets and stun grenades.“
http://wire.antiwar.com/2009/03/14/american-wounded-by-israeli-troops-has-surgery-4/
4. There go our 1st Amendment protections. No more privacy at all:
“Why Obama Really Classified the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement
You’ve heard that Obama is citing national security to justify keeping the terms of a new international copyright treaty secret. The treaty would allegedly criminalize peer-to-peer sharing, make iPods searchable at the border, and allow internet service providers to monitor their customers’ communications.
If the only participants in the treaty negotiation were governments and internet service providers, then there might be some argument (no matter how far-fetched) that the treaty really does involve national security. For example, it could really be some back-door way to catch terrorists on the internet.
But it is common knowledge that the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) have had a large hand in drafting and revising the language of the treaty. The RIAA and MPAA are solely concerned with maximizing the profits of their members from record and movie sales. These folks are obviously not in the anti-terrorism business. They presumably don’t have any national security clearance.
…
Rather than keeping the contents of the treaty away from people who would harm the U.S., it seems that the national security classification is more for the purpose of keeping the details of an outrageous treaty away from the American people.“
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/03/why-obama-really-classified-anti.html
5. Yea, like the world really needs another Western army in the Persian Gulf:
“France to open first Persian Gulf base in May“
